![Are Rankings Reshaping Higher
Education?
Professor Ellen Hazelkorn
Director [VP] Research and Enterprise & Dean of the
Graduate Research School
Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
IAU 13th General Conference
July 2008](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/utr-progfrid-ellenhazelkorn-110926055247-phpapp01/85/Utr-prog-frid-ellen-hazelkorn-1-320.jpg)
![‘What do we need to achieve by 2013? Two universities ranked
in the top 20 worldwide’ (Cronin, 2006).
‘This is the opportunity for more of our universities to emerge
as world-class institutions. More of our universities should aim
to be within the top 100 internationally and I would like some
of our universities to aspire to the top 10’ (Bishop, 2007).
‘This strategic plan…reflects our unswerving commitment….to
transform [xxx] University, within the next 10 years, into a
world-class institution that will be ranked among the top 30
leading universities in the world.’
‘To be number two – that would be good – and to be among
the first ten universities in Germany is also a goal. We are ten
or eleven so it differs between the different rankings so that’s a
point. So we might reach number five or six, would be
possible.’](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/utr-progfrid-ellenhazelkorn-110926055247-phpapp01/85/Utr-prog-frid-ellen-hazelkorn-2-320.jpg)
![How are governments responding?
2 main policy regimes
1. Create greater vertical (reputational) and horizontal (functional)
differentiation [neo-liberal model] – German/Japan
‘excellence initiatives’ to concentrate research in 10/30
world-class universities;
‘to compete globally, the government will close down some
regional and private universities and direct money to the
major universities’
2. ‘Create diverse set of high performing, globally-focused HEIs’
[social-democratic] – Australia:
linking ‘compacts’ to mission and performance
‘move towards self-declaration of mission, setting own
metrics and a corresponding funding model’](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/utr-progfrid-ellenhazelkorn-110926055247-phpapp01/85/Utr-prog-frid-ellen-hazelkorn-16-320.jpg)
Utr. prog frid. ellen hazelkorn
- 1. Are Rankings Reshaping Higher Education? Professor Ellen Hazelkorn Director [VP] Research and Enterprise & Dean of the Graduate Research School Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland IAU 13th General Conference July 2008
- 2. ‘What do we need to achieve by 2013? Two universities ranked in the top 20 worldwide’ (Cronin, 2006). ‘This is the opportunity for more of our universities to emerge as world-class institutions. More of our universities should aim to be within the top 100 internationally and I would like some of our universities to aspire to the top 10’ (Bishop, 2007). ‘This strategic plan…reflects our unswerving commitment….to transform [xxx] University, within the next 10 years, into a world-class institution that will be ranked among the top 30 leading universities in the world.’ ‘To be number two – that would be good – and to be among the first ten universities in Germany is also a goal. We are ten or eleven so it differs between the different rankings so that’s a point. So we might reach number five or six, would be possible.’
- 3. Themes 1. Rising Influence of Global Rankings 2. Institutional Strategies and Policy Choices 3. Observations and Implications
- 4. 1. Rising Influence of Global Rankings
- 5. Rise of Global Rankings If higher education is the engine of the economy, then the global status of HEIs becomes a vital indicator; Yet, there is a gap between national/supra-national ambitions and global performance; Rankings used to measure national competitiveness as expressed by number of HEIs in top 20, 50 or 100; All HEIs drawn into the global knowledge market.
- 6. Playing Rankings Game Despite methodological concerns... Rankings play critical role in building reputation, visibility and brand; High-achieving students use rankings to ‘shortlist’ choices; Stakeholders use rankings to influence funding, sponsorship and employment; Benefits and advantages flow from high-rankings.
- 7. Ranking Status HEIs taking rankings very seriously... 58% respondents unhappy with current rank; 93% and 82% respondents, respectively, want to improve their national or international ranking. 70% of all respondents wish to be in top 10% nationally, and 71% want to be in top 25% internationally.
- 8. Impact on Students Domestic undergraduate: rely on local intelligence, national rankings and entry scores BUT mobility on the rise; Domestic postgraduate: becoming internationally mobile and ranking sensitive; International undergraduate: influenced by institutional partnerships & familial links – some rankings sensitivity; International postgraduate: Highly receptive to global rankings Rankings = short-listing mechanism ‘Might know about Australia, but not where in Australia to go’ Rankings influence on employment opportunities.
- 9. Changes in Academic Work Increased emphasis on academic performance/research outputs Contracts tied to metrics/performance New salary and tenure arrangements Active head-hunting of high-achievers Rankings used to identify under-performers Impact on Staff Morale Faculty not innocent victims: rankings confer social and professional capital on faculty in high-ranked HEIs
- 10. Influence on External Stakeholders Influence goes beyond ‘traditional’ student audience: employers, philanthropists and industry Governments especially influenced by SJT, even beyond HE, e.g. emigration policy Employers have implicit rankings based on own experience which is self-perpetuating ‘Systematic’ approach by large/int’l businesses rather than SME National excellence initiatives used/perceived as a ranking ‘Are you not excellent anymore?’
- 11. 2. Institutional Strategies and Policy Choices
- 12. How are Institutions Responding? 63% HE leaders have taken strategic, organisational, managerial or academic actions in response to the results Of those, Overwhelming majority took either strategic or academic decisions and actions Only 8% respondents indicated they had taken no action
- 13. Institutional Responses High-ranked, international-facing: 65% have formal mechanism to review rank 60% use rankings to set goals for strategic planning 93% believe rankings influencing stakeholders 59% use rankings to monitor peers worldwide Strategy: Use rank to extend research presence and ‘talent-catching’ capability Low/non-ranked, regionally-focused: 21% have formal mechanism to review rank 86% use rankings to set goals for strategic planning 56% believe rankings influencing stakeholders 30% use rankings to monitor peers worldwide Strategy: Focus on selective indicators to build niche research expertise
- 14. Mapping Institutional Actions Specific Actions Weightings Research • Relatively develop/promote bio-sciences rather than arts, humanities & SJT = 40% social sciences Times = 20% • Allocate additional faculty to internationally ranked departments • Reward publications in highly-cited journals • Publish in English-language journals • Set individual targets for faculty and departments Organisation • Merge with another institution, or bring together discipline-complementary SJT = 40% departments Times = 20% • Incorporate autonomous institutes into host HEI • Establish Centres-of-Excellence & Graduate Schools • Develop/expand English-language facilities, international student facilities, laboratories Curriculum • Harmonise with EU/US models SJT = 10% • Discontinue programmes/activities which negatively affect performance Times = 20% • Grow postgraduate activity in preference to undergraduate • Favour science disciplines • Positively affect student/staff ratio (SSR) Students • Target high-achieving students, esp. PhD Times = 15% • Offer attractive merit scholarships and other benefits Faculty • Head-hunt international high-achieving/HiCi scholars SJT = 40% • Create new contract/tenure arrangements Times = 25% • Set market-based or performance/merit based salaries • Reward high-achievers • Identify weak performers Academic • Professionalise Admissions, Marketing and Public Relations Times = 40% Services • Ensure common brand used on all publications • Advertise in high-focus journals, e.g.
- 15. Institutional Choices Use Rankings to Determine Targets Vs. Benchmark Performance? Concentrate on Research Vs. Revise Curriculum? Focus on Strong Fields Vs. Maintain Spread of Disciplines. Merge Discipline Compatible Departments, Close Down Weak Ones or Cross-Subsidize? Strengthen Postgraduate Activity Vs. Undergraduate Programmes? Recruit High-Achieving Students Vs. Widen Access? Headhunt High-Achieving Faculty Vs. Develop Existing Faculty? Merge With Another Institution Vs. Reorganize the Institution? How Much Do We Have To Spend? How Much Can We Afford To Spend?
- 16. How are governments responding? 2 main policy regimes 1. Create greater vertical (reputational) and horizontal (functional) differentiation [neo-liberal model] – German/Japan ‘excellence initiatives’ to concentrate research in 10/30 world-class universities; ‘to compete globally, the government will close down some regional and private universities and direct money to the major universities’ 2. ‘Create diverse set of high performing, globally-focused HEIs’ [social-democratic] – Australia: linking ‘compacts’ to mission and performance ‘move towards self-declaration of mission, setting own metrics and a corresponding funding model’
- 17. Policy Choices Devise Appropriate Indicators to Influence/Incentivize Behaviour Vs. Use Global Rankings. Concentrate Resources In Few ‘Centres of Excellence’ Vs. Support Excellence Wherever it Exists? Use Rankings to Foster Differentiation Vs. Mission Profiling? Allocate Resources According to Mission, Performance or Rankings? Launch Public Information Campaign about ‘Use And Abuse’ of Rankings Vs. Allow Media to Provide Information? How Much Do We Have to Spend? How Much Can We Afford to Spend?
- 18. 3. Observations and Implications
- 19. Positive and Perverse Effects Creating sense of urgency and accelerating modernisation agenda; Driving up institutional performance and providing some public accountability and transparency; Creating elite group of global universities via accentuating vertical/hierarchical differentiation; Reshaping HE by aligning national and institutional priorities – education and research – to indicators; Challenging government, HEIs and the public to (re)think HE, and how and what should be measured.
- 20. Urban Myths Rankings provide useful comparative information about the performance of different HEIs facilitating student choice and benchmarking; Indicators are ‘plausible’/meaningful measurements of research and knowledge creation; High ranked HEIs are better than lower ranked/not ranked institutions; Concentrating research in a few elite institutions or scientific disciplines will ‘lift all boats’.
- 21. Because rankings incentivise behaviour... Using global rankings as the benchmark only makes sense if the indicators are appropriate – otherwise, governments and institutions risk transforming their HE system and institutions, and subverting other policy objectives, to conform to metrics designed by others for other purposes. Policy choices are critical.
- 22. Where to next? If rankings are influencing/incentivising behaviour, is it possible to devise a better way to assess research activity which takes account of the full RDI spectrum? What is the best way to ensure international competitiveness: is it better to have a few world class universities or a world class system?